Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 66 of 85

the likelihood of an offender seeing, getting, and fearing it) in
reducing shrinkage.
This paper also describes shopper, employee, and offender
perceptions of the ePVM as an effective (and employee/customer
friendly) crime-prevention intervention. This paper employs
quantitative and qualitative analysis. The quantitative analysis
from experimental or randomized controlled trial (RCT) research
results shows the implementation of PVMs in selected high-theft
product categories can be both impactful and cost-effective.
LPRC RCTs have shown both shrinkage reductions and sales
increases in a majority of the tested or treated stores between the
pretest period (before the ePVM is put in) and the posttest period
(after the ePVM has been installed). A summary of these studies
is shown in the table at the bottom of the opposite page.
In addition to the quantitative analyses of impact of ePVMs
on ROI and shrinkage, the LPRC also conducted numerous
small qualitative projects to understand customer, employee,
and active-shoplifter perceptions on current or enhanced asset
protection devices, including ePVMs. LPRC studies have found
the majority of shoppers were oblivious to ePVMs, where many
walked by the ePVMs without noticing them. More than 80
percent of customers in all studies said the presence of PVMs
did not adversely affect their shopping experiences. Customers
usually acknowledged they feel safer in the store with the ePVMs.
Customers also noted their shopping experience was not affected
by the ePVMs, and finally, they would buy the items protected
by ePVMs. A summary of these findings can be seen in the
table above.
The results from the employee survey show most employees
interviewed about the ePVMs were positive about its effectiveness.
All employees in every study were aware of the PVM and felt PVM
works to deter shoplifters in the store. Employees also pointed out
the ease of use of PVMs compared to loss prevention techniques
like fixtures, spiders, and boxes.
The results from various offender surveys show there is wide
variation in the likelihood an offender will notice an ePVM.
Enhancements such as sounds and flashing lights can increase the
chances an offender will notice the ePVM. Once the shoplifter's
attention is drawn to the ePVM, LPRC studies have shown most
shoplifters understand why the ePVM was there. Nearly 65 percent
agreed the presence of PVMs deters them. In one study, it was
found an ePVM with a picture-in-picture box (PIP) displaying a
"security guard" deterred 30 percent more offenders than ePVM
without PIP. A summary of these results can be found in the
table above.
Our University of Florida and LPRC teams continue to work
new ePVM dosing options including unit placement, numbers
per store, constant slight changes to maintain freshness, and aural
and visual priming cues to boost the treatment's noticeability
and credibility.
2018 IMPACT Conference
LPRC members set another attendance record at the beautiful
University of Florida venue in two ways. First, overall participation
hit just a hair under 400, and top LP leaders went from the typical
dozen or so vice presidents to over thirty. While LPRC member
engagement went up, so did the number of reviewed LP research
projects in Learning Lab breakouts, posters, and main stage
presentations rising from twenty-plus to forty-one.
LPRC IMPACT is truly a learning and sharing environment.
The Impact Mad Scientist gamification, the LPRC Solution
Experience Center, updated conference app, along with the senior
LP leader STRATEGY@ session made this year's event even more
unique. Next year's LPRC IMPACT is already being planned and
will be held September 30 to October 2.
A Growing Research and Results Community
As of this writing, the LPRC community continues to rapidly
grow with over seventy retail chains, over seventy solution
partners, industry partners like the Loss Prevention Foundation, LP
Magazine, D&D Daily, the Restaurant Loss Prevention & Security
Association, the National Association of Safety Professionals, and a
half-dozen manufacturers like P&G, Mead Johnson, Bacardi, Coty,
Duracell, and Stanley/Dewalt.
What this means is more data, more test locations, and much
more LP talent working together in eight working groups, the iLab,
at summits, webinars, and Impact, and in the field to transform LP
action and results. Please contact kevin.larson@kroger.com or
jessi@lpresearch.org to learn more about how your organization
can engage with us.
Customer reactions to the ePVM in multiple
areas of deployment in multiple stores
ePVM location
and store type
See
it
Understand
the purpose
of the PVM
Feel the
PVM is
effective in
preventing
crime
Feel more
secure
at store
with PVM
Does
not
impact
shopping
behavior
DIY Store –
self checkout 1
31%
84% 79% 27% 97%
DIY Store 1 –
in aisle
45%
DIY Store 1 –
customer service
21%
DIY Store –
self checkout 2
42%
Supermarket Chain
1 (ePVM near
infant formula)
100% 85% 90% 81% 86%
Supermarket Chain
1 (ePVM near
premium Spirit)
100% 90% 76% 60% 100%
Results for See It; Get it; Fear It
over multiple areas of deployment and stores
ePVM postion See it Get it Fear it
Entryway ePVM in store 1 (n=10) 31% 84% 79%
In-aisle non-PIP ePVM in store 1 (n=10) 45%
In-aisle PIP ePVM in store 2 (n=38) 21%
In-aisle ePVM in store 2 (n=48) 42%
In-aisle PIP ePVM in store 3
protecting razor blade packs (n=49)
100% 85% 90%
In-aisle PIP ePVM in store 3
protecting whitening strips (n=49)
100% 90% 76%
65
LP MAGAZINE | NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2018